CMAJ suggests withholding disclosure of fetus' sex to after 30 weeks to avoid sex-selective abortions

Wouldn't even an untrained eye be able to see the baby's penis (or lack thereof) on the ultrasound?

I don't see how if the information is requested, a doctor can withhold it. I mean, it's the woman's medical information. If she asks the doctor, I don't know how she can be refused.

And while I'd certainly agree that abortions based on the sex of the baby is terrible, there's no law against making that choice so I don't see how a woman can be denied access to her own medical information to make a perfectly legal decision.

Ghislaine wrote:

Here on PEI, you cannot find out the baby's sex at any stage prior to birth.

Is that the law in PEI?  If so, do you know what the rationale for that restriction is?

A person should have the right to any and all information about their health that is available to their physician. 

...or how they could possibly get it wrong if it were determined by amnio. 

I remember during one ultrasound visit we were told that determining it by that method not an exact science. If they gave out that information with that caveat, or if they just drew up a waiver, I can't imagine anyone getting sued, either. 

Clearly this is just more of the selective footdragging, roadblocks and scare tactics when it comes to pressuring wome on issues of choice.

Sven wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

Here on PEI, you cannot find out the baby's sex at any stage prior to birth.

Is that the law in PEI?  If so, do you know what the rationale for that restriction is?

A person should have the right to any and all information about their health that is available to their physician. 

I absolutely agree.  How ridiculous.  I found out from the ultrasound clinic I went to when I was pregnant - I was dying to know.  I would have been furious had they refused to tell me.  And there was no issue around liability if they were wrong.  They told me very clearly that it is quite possible that they could be mistaken.  As someone said above, if that was really the concern, they could just get the patient to sign a waiver.

First of all, it isn't up to anyone to question the decision of any woman to have an abortion, nor ask her the reasons.  Secondly, every woman has the right to know absolutely anything and everything about her body.  If it's knowable and easily discerned during tests, then she has the right to know.  It is disgustingly paternalistic to refuse to tell her.

I don't really care if a woman aborts a fetus because it is female, because I think women know best what to do with themselves and their bodies and their lives.  If a woman is in a family situation where she figures she will get a hard time for bringing a female baby into the world, or the girl will have a difficult life, then she has every right to decide against having it.  If a woman simply, for some reason, just really likes boys better than girls or has sexist reasons, or has five girls and wants a boy, or whatever, then while I wouldn't think much of her for it, the fact is, I wouldn't want her to raise a girl she doesn't want anyhow.  If a woman is so determined not to have a girl that she would terminate an otherwise wanted pregnancy simply due to the sex of the fetus, then imagine what life would be like for a female child born to that person or family.

Either way, it's nobody's business why a woman chooses abortion, and medical professionals should have to give any and all available information to a woman about her body (and that includes the body of the fetus, because it's part of her body).

So we have right-wing, religious anti-choice nutjobs trying to force unwanted medical examinations and information on women through mandatory ultrasounds and reports on the fetus's heartbeat and developmental stage before they can have abortions.  Then we have supposedly progressive people (including the medical establishment, it would seem) trying to force women to accept less information than they want by not telling them the sex of the fetus until the usual window of time in the pregnancy for abortions (first and second trimester) is over.  All in an attempt to try and control what women do with their bodies, and interfere with their right to choose.

Sineed wrote:

An editorial in the latest Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests to physicians that they don't disclose the sex of a fetus to its parents until after 30 weeks, when abortion of a healthy fetus is all but impossible, to avoid abortions motivated by the desire to have sons.

I just read the article and it seems to me Dr Kale was 'suggesting' to Canadian women at large that they "temporairily" give up our bodily rights for a few that may or may not be choosing to not to keep female fetus.  For the good of all women around the world to be the implication. Anyway that is what I get from his last paragraph.

Quote:

The execution of a "disclose sex only after 30 weeks"

policy would require the understanding and willingness of

women of all ethnicities to make a temporary compromise.

Postponing the transmission of such information is a small

price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. Compared

with the situation in India and China, the problem of female

feticide in Canada is small, circumscribed and manageable. If

Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do

India and China have of saving millions of women?

This not a appeal to the racism of western women. Then we western women can be the good saviours of female fetus around the world and can pat ourselves on the back and say job well done kinda thing. pretty sickening and I can see why he did himself out of a job.
*****
Michelle I liked what you had to say about this topic.

@ Gaian

I have no problem with him being controversial. When I heard about the hockey and parking editorials I agreed with his stance. 

This is something completely different - it is writing so shockingly slanted and technically inaccurate that I wonder how he got the job in thr first place. His only sources are medical, government and a study.

He does not even mention the legal implications, the question of a woman's right to choose, or other alternatives, like education. He might be trying to sound accomodating in the last paragraph, but technically what he is talking about the College of Physicians and Surgeons making public policy and denying rights by decree - a decree that would probably contravene the charter, and in any case is properly the responsibility of Ministers of Health.

And aside from the fact it is terrible writing, his opinion speaks to the worst of arrogance in the medical profession. I wonder if he ran this little piece past his board. Considering it is one of the few issues that is so hot that even our prime minister won't touch it openly, that might have been a prudent step.

I can imagine that along with many women, and people from cultures he mentions being outraged, there are probably a few doctors who don't appreciate how this editorial makes them look.

It's not a widespread practice in Canada, so the male/ female ratio is still at normal.  In parts of China, men outnumber women to such a degree, hundreds of thousands will have no chance of marriage and family unless they move away and that's not a possiblitiy for most.  This is not to say - poor men - it can create alot of societal problems for everyone to have the natural order thrown out of whack.

Unionist wrote:

Point of information:

Are ultrasounds now routine? Are they available on request? Or are they restricted to specific or "at risk" situations?

 

To the best of my knowledge, in BC an ultrasound after 21 weeks is recommended as standard of care for all pregant women.  Pregnancy over the age of 35 is considered "at risk" and a second ultrasound is recommended at 32-35 weeks.  Other inconclusive or positive diagnostic results would lead to a recommendation for a detailed ultrasound at other times during pregnancy.

You can also purchase a detailed, 3-D ultrasound (complete with 8 x 10 stills and a cd) for about $250 at a private clinic here.  There are no stated limits to the number of ultrasounds a pregnant woman can have.

quizzical wrote:

It would be up to China and India to address not the women and Drs of the western world I think.

Just another way to try and change the opinions of people to accept temporairly suspending women's right to choose 'cause it is just for a short time not forever or anything. :rolleyes:

I certainly wasn't suggesting interference in China or India's abortion policies.  I'm saying where aborting female fetuses has been widespread for many years - they are feeling some of the negative effects.  Sorry i don't have the source for this right now and if this is too far off-topic.

The website I work for managed to get a few NDP leadership contenders (the three 'Ashes' - Ashton, Nash & Saganash) to give their two-cents on this issue.

Sex-selective abortion: Argle-bargle or foofaraw http://www.themooseandpussy.com/?p=153